City Council Blog 1/20/15

Tuesday

Appointment of Matthew Yalouris to the Community Development Advisory Committee. Approval of the Reappointment of Douglas Hannam to the Citizen's Advisory Council.

Reappointment of Aaron Richman to the Human Rights Commission. Reappointment of Jake Messier to the Trust Funds Commission

ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

> One of the rules changes in 8.13 proposes limiting total time to 30 minutes.

John Provost: Speaking on 8.13 – city council rule changes. First thanks mayor for patience with people who went over their allotted 2 minutes the last 2 meetings when speaking on the WPD resolution. Does not want public discussion limited to 30 minutes.

Idella Hazard: Speaking on 8.13 – all citizens who wish to speak on an item should be able to speak. I don't think we should pick and choose which citizens get to speak, especially in regards to civil rights.

Kevin Ksen: Speaking on 8.13 – we spend a lot of time trying to increase civic engagement. It's the rules that hopefully make it more welcoming to the public. The summary was one of the least readable things I've seen over the years, it was mish-mashed and hard to follow. Could we get it written better? Wants to flag a few things – the 30 minute rule. It feels weird to codify that. Even if we say we're waiving it all the time, why do that? Doesn't like the word “privilege” - people have a right to come here to speak. Concern over how they reworked items of public interest a year and a half ago – not sure that is working well, since it's all at the beginning. Touches on videotaping – wants that to be codified.

George Delgado: Says he is speaking on 8.13 – He's from Webster. Talks about misogyny and patriarchy. Petty points out that neither of those is on the agenda. Delgado says chivalry isn't dead, does not finish his 2 minutes.

Colin Novick: Speaking on 8.7B – Asian longhorned beetle. From Worcester Land Trust. We knew in 2008 the limits of chemical treatment, the effectiveness of cutting down trees, the limits of surveys. It is hard to watch a forest come down. It is also our responsibility. We have planted by hand no trees. We have let the forest come back on its own. If when we first detected trees in Green Hill Park we had the same political resolve we wouldn't have this problem. Here to reassure you that because these trees will have stumps they will grow back much faster. Wants people to tour the Bidenzi property to see for themselves.

George Delgado: Tries to talk again. Stumps for friend running for city council. Petty gets him to leave after some back and forth.

Jo Hart: Speaking on 8.13 – Would like to point out what escapes a lot of people. Refers to the city manager as Augustus – Petty corrects her, says it's Mr. Augustus or Mr. City Manager, says “respect goes both ways in this chamber.” Hart wants the dialogue to continue via public meetings instead of limited separate meetings in the neighborhood. People are ignorant because they don't understand a lot of things. Reiterates the need to have public meetings. Asks Mr. Augustus specifically to have public meetings.

Nicole Apostola: Speaking on 8.13 – The printed and online agendas tend to have multiple people co-sponsoring, wants that looked at. Would appreciate stronger language about getting items addressed within the 60 days required.

George Delgado: Tries to speak for a third time. Petty, Ksen and the police officer stationed in City Hall manage to get him to leave.

8.7B: ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLE

Palmieri: Appreciates the greater Worcester land trust, wholeheartedly disagrees with cutting down acres of trees. After 50 million dollars/8 years, not sure we've taken a step forward. If we clear cut the whole area in Green Hill Park, I wonder what the unintended consequences will be. The water runoff will be dramatic for that neighborhood. My suggestion here is that the city manager allows the city solicitor to become part of an appeal process so that there is action that can be taken, because we've gone down this road the past 8 years, and I don't see the progress that's been made and I believe there are more ALBs than there have been before. I think we need this appeals process and I think the neighborhood deserves this.

Mr. Augustus: It's not something they do unless there's no alternative treatment that would not endanger many other additional trees. Some of the neighbors abutting the property have given permission to have trees on their own property removed, because they understand the bigger picture in stopping the spread of the beetle. They've weighed in in that way. Not sure how the appeals process would work – who exactly is appealing? There will be a public forum for citizens to come, ask questions, get feedback. I'm not sure how an appeals process would be facilitated. Also concerned the time it would take would hurt the fight against the beetle.

Palmieri: You have to appeal 10 days prior. If you don't we can't appeal. The fact of the matter is that after the fact when this is completely done and we have these torrential downpours and we have these areas that are going to be floodzones, we should have the opportunity to have someone who can go to them. I think there will be quite a few people who will be impacted, and it would be great if we have someone from the city who could do that. I think we need an attorney.

Paul Moosey, DPW: There's three specific areas. Dixon Ave, off 290, a wooded area across from Denmark St. Only cutting down host trees. As part of the plan to remove trees an erosion control plan will be submitted. This is tree removal, not so much ground disturbance. We're not stripping the soil, we're cutting the trees.

Peter Church: Director of forest stewardship for DCR. Have forest plans that are put into practice when we do cuts. Erosion controls, endangered species, overseen by foresters from DCR. There are checks and balances when cutting plans are put into place.

Toomey: I'm a little concerned about consistency. I was here since the beginning, but there's great inconsistency within the USDA for how they are managing this. Talks about New York having options instead of clear cutting, only cutting down host trees instead of infected trees. Folks deserve an opportunity to question what's happening in their neighborhood.

Ryan Vasquez: Dept. of Agriculture. Those methods – inoculation treatment – every instance of an infestation is its own infestation that needs to be evaluated. On a yearly basis we do evaluate if treatment would be effective, we'll reevaluate next year.

Toomey: Document she referred to was from Sept 2014, so it's not outdated.

Economou: It's a tough situation. We all want to get rid of the beetle, it's caused havoc in our city. Devastation in the tree world is one thing, devastation in people's lives is another thing. Let's look at other places in the country where the treatment is less invasive.

Rushton: The most telling thing I've heard so far is things operate on a case by case basis. Makes a cancer analogy – things are different from patient to patient, have to make adjustments for the best course of treatment. Why does Worcester need to do this [clear cutting] in this case as opposed to Chicago, Bethel, New York? What have you seen that makes you say in Bethel we could do that, but we can't in Worcester? Give us the facts to support the conclusion that in this case this is the method that needs to be done, and we can satisfy for ourselves why this method needs to be done.

Church: Massachusetts has 3 million acres of forest, we're in an urban suburban rural interface where the forest comes right to the city's edge. Survey is the best way to find the beetle but it is not foolproof. We knew there were going to be hotspots. Green Hill Park is a hotspot. We're winning the battle in killing off the beetle.

Rushton: If we can get a white paper to lay it out a little better. It could be something people could reference and see as opposed to this oral presentation. Did other places – Chicago, Ohio, NY – have recurrences?

Vasquez: Some are doing full host removal, doesn't know about others, can get info on request. Treatment can be implemented at the end of this program as soon as next year.”

Rushton: Are you stating that if this method goes into effect other spots are going to be able to go back to treatment by injection? Are you basically saying we have a situation where we need to do a clear cut, and next year when we go back there is no longer a hotspot, we could revert back to treatment by injection?

Vasquez: Says yes, with many qualifiers including information at that time.

Bergman: Who actually makes the decision in their department on which method is ued?

Bergman: Has there been a case where the chosen method was incorrect in retrospect?

Church: With infestations like Green Hill Park where we have a couple hundred infested trees, the best method is full host removal. I don't know of any instances where we've done a full host removal that wasn't warranted.

Bergman: What I'm trying to suggest is that not everyone has all the answers, including our friends form the federal govt, and maybe I could get an acknowledgment of that.

Church: You are correct.

Bergman: Has anyone let an outside expert contribute to choosing a strategy?

Vasquez: We have a whole branch dedicated to research, they're based in Massachusetts, and they've been doing years of research. When we evaluate this they're definitely in the conversation.

Bergman: I do have a grave concern that there is such a diverse opinion out there about what works and what doesn't work. Before you chop a leg off you should make sure you need to chop the leg off. Before we go through with any major process to chop trees down we should get an opinion from an expert who's not from the federal govt. It puts people like me who are concerned with the methodology to sleep.

Mr. Augustus: I just want to be careful that we understand there are consequences to not proceeding forward. A lot of the progress we've made could be for naught if we change methods. If we take a retreat or a timeout in our aggressive strategy we could find ourselves back here in another couple years with more hotspots. There are risk to both paths.

Rosen: It's sometimes trial and error, we try different things, and probably the final method hasn't even be discovered yet. Any tree that's infested with beetles must come down – is that correct? Church and Vasquez nod in the audience. How many more trees do we take down that aren't infested with beetles? Worcester started by taking down many host trees. Host trees mean they're susceptible. We took down thousands of trees the first year or two. I'm thinking maybe that didn't help very much. We don't know for sure. Now we're in a different phase. How many trees are you planning to take down in these three hotspots.

Vasquez: Doesn't have an exact number since they measure in acres, but it would be thousands.

Church: If we only cut those particular trees we knew were infected we would miss some. A full host method is needed there. This is 50 acres out of a larger area – this is good news.

Rosen: What are the chances clear cutting would work?

Church: There won't be any host trees left for the beetles to go to.

Rosen: Odds of survey detection?

Vasquez: 30-70 percent. If we even leave one of those trees, we could come back years later and it could spread throughout.

Rosen: The areas we hope to save might be infested already, correct?

Vasquez: Yes.

Russell: Is it cheaper to cut a tree down or treat it chemically?

Vasquez: Not a direct comparison. Federal govt bids on those methods. It all depends at that time.

Russell: Is the cost of treatment vs removal something to take into consideration?

Vasquez: Not for what we're looking at. It's about the best way to treat the problem.

Russell: What about surrounding times? Brings up Shrewsbury's ALB problems.

Church: We did full host removals in areas of Shrewsbury. Just down the road from St. John's, other areas.

Russell: Sold a home in that area. Family said the trees in that neighborhood were treated chemically, not clear cut. If it's good enough for Shrewsbury why isn't it good enough for Worcester?

Mr. Augustus: Any individual person can treat trees if they want, or the city can do it. If we're talking about 5 million trees, and potentially 5 million trees that would have to be inoculated, 3 times over 3 successive years, so you're talking about 15 million treatments to go exclusively with the treatment method. I could anticipate the cost – money and people – would be phenomenal. Is Shrewsbury being treated differently? No.

Russell: So it would be cheaper to cut down trees rather than treat them?

Mr. Augustus: Potentially, but that's not the equation we were using. We were going off the best advice. If you look at the big picture of where we are the strategy is working, as traumatic and painful as it is. Longterm we're on the right path to ultimately getting to where we want to go.

Russell: Do the homeowners have the same option to treat trees through their own expense?

Mr. Augustus: Yes, as long as the tree is not infected. We're putting together a brochure to inform homeowners about that option. Says we might be using “clear cutting” as a term wrong. There's no area where we're removing every single tree from that area – there are different species, etc.

Russell: I find it hard to believe there will not be an erosion control problem. I just think we need to take another look at that. Draws on experience as a realtor.

Economou: We need to eliminate the “clear cutting” as a phrase. The phrase is not good, it doesn't suggest anything positive. All host trees should be treated, and those trees should be closely monitored for the next couple years. Cutting a tree down should be the last resort. It's about eradication of the beetle and not eradication of a neighborhood.

Lukes: When the federal govt came in to deal with the issue of the beetle infestation, they had planned out a 10 year commitment to Worcester. We're in the 7th year now. How long is this battle going to be going on?

Vasquez: We've grown. Since then we've been bringing on staff, obtaining contracts to assist with surveying, we're hoping to accomplish that in the next 3 years. There's at least 6 to 8 more years, but as we gather more information that could change, it could either be reduced or increase. We currently have over 100 personnel to work for us as well as an additional 100+ based on the season.

Lukes: When govt gets involved in something it's more expensive, it's more intrusive.

Vasquez: The agency provided its best estimate at that time. With everything we've looked at and the number of people we have we're planning on decreasing the time left.

Lukes: Is the funding commitment from state and federal agencies going to be there for that entire term?

Vasquez: $12.8 million budget for FY15. Answers in the affirmative to Lukes' question.

Lukes: Concerns city govt will have to pick up the tab. Has that happened anywhere else?

Vasquez: No.

Lukes: I don't believe all that, but thank you.

Toomey: What species of trees are hosts?

Church: Maple, ash, etc.

Toomey: Points out discrepancies with the website and other reports. Asks question about Canada.

Vasquez: There are 13 host genera, numerous species within those genera. Reports are based on trees in the area. Canada – in Toronto they pursued full host removal, had success, ALB is eradicated there.

Palmieri: Supports Economou's motion. Are you telling us that the people in your employ have observed 5 million trees?

Vasquez: Yes.

Palmieri: How?

Vasquez: On a daily basis they work through acres of trees.

Palmieri: Could they provide something to us for a timetable for how they observed these 5 million trees? I'd like to know how 5 million trees would be observed. I hope USDA and DCR will be a little more malleable.

Mr. Augustus: I'd urge the council not to change the policy tonight. Let me look at the consequences/costs.

Petty: It's like losing a member of your family when you lose trees. I can understand the frustration and concern of the councilors. If we make a policy decision to change this we have to live with those consequences, and those would be more dramatic than what we're planning to do this Spring. Leaving some of these trees standing could be more dramatic. Can you imagine if we make a crucial mistake and the funding goes away and when we go back the infestation comes back? The initial consequences of cutting the trees down are devastating, so it's an important issue, and if we make the wrong decision there will be huge consequences.

Palmieri: That's generic – councilor Economou's proposal is specific to this area. By saying this vote is the same vote is the same vote for the entire city and the entire region. This vote is for the specific area, and let's see how that works. It's only been here for 20 years, and the USDA and DCR said from the get go that there wasn't any infestation in Green Hill Park for the last 8 years, so their science is not exactly exact.

Mr. Augustus: The strategy that is being suggested now is the strategy we used that didn't work, that created this new hotspot. Will have report in 2 weeks to let the council make the decision.

8.6A: Approval of new Nelson Place Elementary School project with reimbursement of 80 percent through MSBA.

Economou: Thanks committee involved in project.

Passes 11-0

8.13A: Rule Changes

Russell: Recommends to send it back to committee. It's a difficult task to rewrite the rulebook. My concern is it's too hard to follow. I'm looking for a sheet, something that's clear and concise, something where folks can see what's actually being proposed. This is something that's a highlight of the changes, but I want something that's easier to follow.

Lukes: Answers public question about council sign-ons to agenda items. There is a legal opinion on file, wants it brought forward next time.

Bergman: Rule 40 indicates that discussion is limited to 1 hour, until each councilor is permitted to speak. Which comes first? Should there be language added to that to clarify. Rule 50 indicates that the citizens and employers of the city will have a chance to be heard. How does that affect non-worcester residents?

David Moore: City Solicitor. The rule that allows anyone to speak is one thing, the rule is another, they can both overlap to some extent, but the city rules go further to allow anyone to speak.

Bergman: Where I'm going with this is that I'm not sure the same number of public speaking minutes should be extended to non-Worcester residents.

Moore: Would like to do research.

Lukes: What is the council's ability to suspend the rules? If we can suspend the rules at will we have to understand the limited impact of the language. Motion ordered.

Russell: If there is any specific rule change needed for compliance with the open meeting law changes, maybe those items that deal with the open meeting law should come back to us and the law dept finalizes this while they have the opportunity. Motion ordered.

Rivera: How will the 30 minute limit work? First come first serve?

Petty: Brings up suspension of the rules. 30 minutes is just a suggestion.

Rushton: Asks about 9c cuts in light of Gov. Baker's announcement of a budget gap.

Mr. Augustus: Is meeting with Lt. Gov. Polito soon, will ask then.

GRANTS AND DONATIONS

8.30A-I, 8.31A-B, 8.33A, 9.A-B All pass 11-0

10A: Amending Worcester Zoning Ordinance adopted April 2, 1991, relative to creating Commercial Corridors Overlay Districts, Creative Entrepreneur Lofts, and the elimination of the Parking Overlay Districts, the Arts Overlay District and the Mixed Use Development Overlay Districts.

Russell and Palmieri recuse themselves due to properties in the area. Bergman suggests that is not necessary, just an abundance of caution.

Petty holds item under privilege.

11A-B: Enforcing breaches of service agreement with Laz Parking, Limited in regards to City owned parking garages as well as assessed value of parking garages and anticipated costs.

Bergman tables under privilege.

Rushton: Eulogizes Sonny Stoltz, who died recently. He gave back to people without expecting anything back. Calls him a “street philanthropist.” Did not write big checks, handed out help to individuals. Council gives him a moment of silence.

Rivera: No parking on Newbury St. Asks to reverse winter parking ban on the street.

Mr. Augustus: The city values people's constitutional right to protest. References street and city council protests. Also has the obligation as a city to protect public safety and need to keep streets clear to protect drivers and protesters. We want to balance the right of people to peacefully protest with the interests of people trying to get around their daily life. They have rights as well. This is not a decision by the chief, this is a decision by the administration and the chief is enforcing this. Any suggestion that the chief is acting in a retaliatory manner is wrong – it's a city govt decision. The police have conducted themselves admirably. If people feel like they want to exercise their right to protest they need to do it in a way that's safe to them and other people.